Substackers against Nazis

A collective letter to Substack leadership

On 28 November 2023, journalist Jonathan M. Katz wrote an article for The Atlantic with the headline “Substack Has a Nazi Problem”. Katz found “scores of white-supremacist, neo-Confederate, and explicitly Nazi newsletters on Substack”.

Katz acknowledges that “Moderating online content is notoriously tricky”. He spoke to Whitney Phillips, a professor of journalism at the University of Oregon. Katz writes that she cautions that “simply banning hate groups from a platform - even if sometimes necessary from a business standpoint - can end up redounding to the extremists’ benefit by making them seem like victims of an overweening censorship regime”.

But Phillips also points out that in the case of Richard Hanania, Substack is actively promoting a racist by inviting him onto the Substack podcast. A review of Hanania’s most recent book noted that, “Put plainly Richard Hanania remains a white supremacist. A real one.”

Hate speech

Substack has content guidelines that prohibit hate speech.

Katz asks,

If something that bills itself as “a National Socialist website” doesn’t violate Substack’s own policy against “hate,” what does?

Journalist Matt Taibbi disagrees with Katz and jumps to Substack’s defence. Taibbi accuses Katz of wanting to prevent Substack from making its own decisions about content.

He accuses Katz of aiming to deplatform Substack contributors he doesn’t like. Taibbi writes that,

People like Substack CEO Chris Best and co-founders Hamish McKenzie and Jairaj Sethi have proven they won’t let outside groups dictate to them about content. This is why contributors like me, who have a lot to worry about on this front, are loyal. It’s also why people seek out content here: they know they’re getting a far less filtered version of reality than they’re seeing on platforms like Facebook and YouTube, where deamplification, strikes, and outright removals have become routine.

Katz responded. I think we can safely conclude that Katz and Taibbi don’t get on too well:

I do not, as Taibbi falsely claims, want to “deplatform Substack contributors [I don’t] like.” I, for instance, don’t like Matt Taibbi. I think he’s a disingenuous loser who sold out his reputation to do grunt work for billionaires. But—and not that it’s up to me—he can keep writing his Substack as long as he likes.

Elle Griffin has also written a defence of Substack’s failure to address the Nazi problem. Lots of people have signed on, including Bari Weiss, Edward Snowden, Matt Taibbi, Paul Kingsnorth, Michael Shellenberger, and Slavoj Žižek.

Griffin’s argument relies on the fact that subscribers to Substack newsletters will not receive hateful content unless they subscribe to it. But that really isn’t the point because as Katz points out, Substack is promoting hateful content.

So, here’s the letter asking Substack’s leadership why they are allowing - and even promoting - hate speech on their platform. The organisers of the letter are encouraging people to repost the letter on your Substack. If you do, let them know you’ve done so here.

Dear Chris, Hamish & Jairaj:

We’re asking a very simple question that has somehow been made complicated: Why are you platforming and monetizing Nazis? 

According to a piece written by Substack publisher Jonathan M. Katz and published by The Atlantic on November 28, this platform has a Nazi problem: 

“Some Substack newsletters by Nazis and white nationalists have thousands or tens of thousands of subscribers, making the platform a new and valuable tool for creating mailing lists for the far right. And many accept paid subscriptions through Substack, seemingly flouting terms of service that ban attempts to ‘publish content or fund initiatives that incite violence based on protected classes’ . . . Substack, which takes a 10 percent cut of subscription revenue, makes money when readers pay for Nazi newsletters.”

As Patrick Casey, a leader of a now-defunct neo-Nazi group who is banned on nearly every other social platform except Substack, wrote on here in 2021: “I’m able to live comfortably doing something I find enjoyable and fulfilling. The cause isn’t going anywhere.” Several Nazis and white supremacists including Richard Spencer not only have paid subscriptions turned on but have received Substack “Bestseller” badges, indicating that they are making at a minimum thousands of dollars a year.

From our perspective as Substack publishers, it is unfathomable that someone with a swastika avatar, who writes about “The Jewish question,” or who promotes Great Replacement Theory, could be given the tools to succeed on your platform. And yet you’ve been unable to adequately explain your position. 

In the past you have defended your decision to platform bigotry by saying you “make decisions based on principles not PR” and “will stick to our hands-off approach to content moderation.” But there’s a difference between a hands-off approach and putting your thumb on the scale. We know you moderate some content, including spam sites and newsletters written by sex workers. Why do you choose to promote and allow the monetization of sites that traffic in white nationalism? 

Your unwillingness to play by your own rules on this issue has already led to the announced departures of several prominent Substackers, including Rusty Foster and Helena Fitzgerald. They follow previous exoduses of writers, including Substack Pro recipient Grace Lavery and Jude Ellison S. Doyle, who left with similar concerns. 

As journalist Casey Newton told his more than 166,000 Substack subscribers after Katz’s piece came out: “The correct number of newsletters using Nazi symbols that you host and profit from on your platform is zero.” 

We, your publishers, want to hear from you on the official Substack newsletter. Is platforming Nazis part of your vision of success? Let us know—from there we can each decide if this is still where we want to be.

Signed, 

Substackers Against Nazis

---